A case for jungle primaries

[Marvin the Martian]

The Democrats were 16-0 going against Republicans that Democrats helped win in the primary. And some Democrats, like the author of the Slate article below, are celebrating. I hate the idea of interfering with primaries. But under most current systems, there isn't a way to prevent it. So jungle primaries are needed.

All candidates appear and the top 2, and only the top 2, advance to the general. Now Democrats could vote for Mastriano to have him be one of the two, but they then risk that their chosen candidate isn't the other one. I am not sure how to get this to work for the Presidency without a national primary (which I whole-heartedly support), but there has to be a way.

We should be voting for who will lead the country the best, not voting for the worst possible choice. The incentive must be changed to do away with that.

How Democrats Fought Dirty and Won

They finally campaigned like Republicans. Worked out pretty well!

slate.com

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

The Democrats were 16-0 going against Republicans that Democrats helped win in the primary. And some Democrats, like the author of the Slate article below, are celebrating. I hate the idea of interfering with primaries. But under most current systems, there isn't a way to prevent it. So jungle primaries are needed.

All candidates appear and the top 2, and only the top 2, advance to the general. Now Democrats could vote for Mastriano to have him be one of the two, but they then risk that their chosen candidate isn't the other one. I am not sure how to get this to work for the Presidency without a national primary (which I whole-heartedly support), but there has to be a way.

We should be voting for who will lead the country the best, not voting for the worst possible choice. The incentive must be changed to do away with that.

How Democrats Fought Dirty and Won

They finally campaigned like Republicans. Worked out pretty well!

slate.com

This from the article:

Ultimately for Democrats, what is important isn’t necessarily any particular tactic, but a state of mind that must be shared widely across the party at all levels of government: The current version of the Republican Party is a threat to the existence of democracy itself. Any strategy or policy that can reduce or eliminate the GOP’s ridiculous advantages in the Electoral College, House, and Senate must be pursued at all costs. Any available strategy that is both legal and constitutional that can reduce the total number of Republicans in office should be pursued, whether it is regarded as “dirty” or “hardball.” That sense of urgency must be constant, rather than deployed selectively in election years when the possibility of a GOP takeover becomes horrifyingly real.

So let's assume that people really believe the bolded. Why, then, does he write that only legal means must be used? If you truly believe the Republicans winning will be the end of democracy itself, aren't you justified--required, even--to use all other illegal measures too?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This from the article:

Ultimately for Democrats, what is important isn’t necessarily any particular tactic, but a state of mind that must be shared widely across the party at all levels of government: The current version of the Republican Party is a threat to the existence of democracy itself. Any strategy or policy that can reduce or eliminate the GOP’s ridiculous advantages in the Electoral College, House, and Senate must be pursued at all costs. Any available strategy that is both legal and constitutional that can reduce the total number of Republicans in office should be pursued, whether it is regarded as “dirty” or “hardball.” That sense of urgency must be constant, rather than deployed selectively in election years when the possibility of a GOP takeover becomes horrifyingly real.

So let's assume that people really believe the bolded. Why, then, does he write that only legal means must be used? If you truly believe the Republicans winning will be the end of democracy itself, aren't you justified--required, even--to use all other illegal measures too?

I purposely linked that article because it does take that position and that position is wrong. We aren't in a war against the enemy. I hear my left and my right friends say the exact same thing, 'they fight dirty so we have to fight dirty".

So yes, if one believes Democracy is doomed by the other side then they have the right to do these dirty tricks to save democracy. The problem is they are wrong in that belief.

 

[Sope Creek]

The Democrats were 16-0 going against Republicans that Democrats helped win in the primary. And some Democrats, like the author of the Slate article below, are celebrating. I hate the idea of interfering with primaries. But under most current systems, there isn't a way to prevent it. So jungle primaries are needed.

All candidates appear and the top 2, and only the top 2, advance to the general. Now Democrats could vote for Mastriano to have him be one of the two, but they then risk that their chosen candidate isn't the other one. I am not sure how to get this to work for the Presidency without a national primary (which I whole-heartedly support), but there has to be a way.

We should be voting for who will lead the country the best, not voting for the worst possible choice. The incentive must be changed to do away with that.

How Democrats Fought Dirty and Won

They finally campaigned like Republicans. Worked out pretty well!

slate.com

Soooo . . . the general election in effect becomes a run-off between the top 2 vote-getters?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Soooo . . . the general election in effect becomes a run-off between the top 2 vote-getters?

Yes. Everyone is in the primary, the top 2 advance to the general is how I would do it (there are other ways).

 

[Crayfish57]

The Democrats were 16-0 going against Republicans that Democrats helped win in the primary. And some Democrats, like the author of the Slate article below, are celebrating. I hate the idea of interfering with primaries. But under most current systems, there isn't a way to prevent it. So jungle primaries are needed.

All candidates appear and the top 2, and only the top 2, advance to the general. Now Democrats could vote for Mastriano to have him be one of the two, but they then risk that their chosen candidate isn't the other one. I am not sure how to get this to work for the Presidency without a national primary (which I whole-heartedly support), but there has to be a way.

We should be voting for who will lead the country the best, not voting for the worst possible choice. The incentive must be changed to do away with that.

How Democrats Fought Dirty and Won

They finally campaigned like Republicans. Worked out pretty well!

slate.com

I suppose this wouldn't be possible and would only muck counting up more but what if you have to vote for the party you primaried for whatever the outcome? So if you vote for a Rep in primary you have to either vote Rep or no vote. This is going to become a very dangerous thing in my opinion . I'm sure it has been going on in some scale from both sides but large scale it is a problem and election tampering.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I suppose this wouldn't be possible and would only muck counting up more but what if you have to vote for the party you primaried for whatever the outcome? So if you vote for a Rep in primary you have to either vote Rep or no vote. This is going to become a very dangerous thing in my opinion . I'm sure it has been going on in some scale from both sides but large scale it is a problem and election tampering.

I think some states used to say that a vote in the primary was signaling one's intent to vote that way in the general But with a secret ballot there is no way to guarantee it.

 

[Sope Creek]

I purposely linked that article because it does take that position and that position is wrong. We aren't in a war against the enemy. I hear my left and my right friends say the exact same thing, 'they fight dirty so we have to fight dirty".

So yes, if one believes Democracy is doomed by the other side then they have the right to do these dirty tricks to save democracy. The problem is they are wrong in that belief.

Georgia has open primaries . . . which means anyone can vote for any candidate in a primary. I've taken advantage of that (when a preferred candidate is assured of a nomination) to vote for candidates in both parties' primaries in an effort to get someone I consider to be a qualified candidate on the ballot, so I can have a choice rather than be limited to one candidate. (So far it hasn't worked out that way.)

A jungle primary could set up two bad choices as run-off candidates. The messiness of democracy I guess . . . .

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I purposely linked that article because it does take that position and that position is wrong. We aren't in a war against the enemy. I hear my left and my right friends say the exact same thing, 'they fight dirty so we have to fight dirty".

So yes, if one believes Democracy is doomed by the other side then they have the right to do these dirty tricks to save democracy. The problem is they are wrong in that belief.

Seems like a clever way of spreading the team message, with the ability to say that wasn't your intent.. which would be a legal way of informing a sleeper cell of domestic terrorists. You've thought this through.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Seems like a clever way of spreading the team message, with the ability to say that wasn't your intent.. which would be a legal way of informing a sleeper cell of domestic terrorists. You've thought this through.

Just the opposite, it would seem strange to say I don't like the practice, I want to end it, but hey, take away from this that it is a good thing.

Until Trump I held the Democratic Party as public enemy #1 even though I tended to vote for D candidates. I have volunteered for many losing D primary candidates, spent a month on the road for Gary Hart. I hated that the party had their thumb on the scales. I am under no illusions the Democratic Party as an apparatus has any positive value. Trump just showed the GOP was no better.

So no, it is WRONG to ratf$&@ the other party. It should embarrass civilized people. But if I had chosen a different article, someone would have brought up "but your side does it". I was trying to beat that

No parties is the real answer

 

[BigDoggyDogDude]

Republicans need to be smarter and not vote for bad candidates in the primary. No matter how much money Democrats pour in to support said candidate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Republicans need to be smarter and not vote for bad candidates in the primary. No matter how much money Democrats pour in to support said candidate.

I agree, Indiana was a good example. If there were a living Democratic Party, no way Morales wins Secretary of State.

But part of the problem is not just money, Ds voted in R primaries too for these candidates.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Just the opposite, it would seem strange to say I don't like the practice, I want to end it, but hey, take away from this that it is a good thing.

Until Trump I held the Democratic Party as public enemy #1 even though I tended to vote for D candidates. I have volunteered for many losing D primary candidates, spent a month on the road for Gary Hart. I hated that the party had their thumb on the scales. I am under no illusions the Democratic Party as an apparatus has any positive value. Trump just showed the GOP was no better.

So no, it is WRONG to ratf$&@ the other party. It should embarrass civilized people. But if I had chosen a different article, someone would have brought up "but your side does it". I was trying to beat that

No parties is the real answer

the Dems were fine until Wall St, who already owned the RNC, bought the DNC as well, to hedge their bets.

parties are a problem. but far more so when the parties are allowed to be bought by Wall St, (who already owns all media), who then buys both parties because they can.

when money is allowed to buy govt, 100% chance it will.

no money in politics, which frees up both parties from their owned slave status, is the real answer.

 

[UncleMark]

So let's assume that people really believe the bolded. Why, then, does he write that only legal means must be used? If you truly believe the Republicans winning will be the end of democracy itself, aren't you justified--required, even--to use all other illegal measures too?

That would amount to civil war. Let's step back and do what we have to do within the bounds that are set by our constitution and democratic norms. We need to use the same kind of soulless but legal tactics that Mitch McConnell used to remake the Court.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

That would amount to civil war. Let's step back and do what we have to do within the bounds that are set by our constitution and democratic norms. We need to use the same kind of soulless but legal tactics that Mitch McConnell used to remake the Court.

Civil war would be justified if you thought democracy was truly going to end, wouldn't it?

 

[TomEric4756]

The Democrats were 16-0 going against Republicans that Democrats helped win in the primary. And some Democrats, like the author of the Slate article below, are celebrating. I hate the idea of interfering with primaries. But under most current systems, there isn't a way to prevent it. So jungle primaries are needed.

All candidates appear and the top 2, and only the top 2, advance to the general. Now Democrats could vote for Mastriano to have him be one of the two, but they then risk that their chosen candidate isn't the other one. I am not sure how to get this to work for the Presidency without a national primary (which I whole-heartedly support), but there has to be a way.

We should be voting for who will lead the country the best, not voting for the worst possible choice. The incentive must be changed to do away with that.

How Democrats Fought Dirty and Won

They finally campaigned like Republicans. Worked out pretty well!

slate.com

Dems used jungle primaries in CA to oust Pub competition by turning out the primary vote and getting two dems on the Nov ballot. Flipped some house seats that way. (Some of the same ones that flipped pub this time around.)

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Dems used jungle primaries in CA to oust Pub competition by turning out the primary vote and getting two dems on the Nov ballot. Flipped some house seats that way. (Some of the same ones that went pub this time around.)

Yes, but it becomes harder to screw the other party. Chances are in those districts so skewed one will have a radical and a moderate. The moderate will stand an excellent chance.

In existing primaries in districts so skewed we get MTG or AOC.

 

[iuwclurker]

This from the article:

Ultimately for Democrats, what is important isn’t necessarily any particular tactic, but a state of mind that must be shared widely across the party at all levels of government: The current version of the Republican Party is a threat to the existence of democracy itself. Any strategy or policy that can reduce or eliminate the GOP’s ridiculous advantages in the Electoral College, House, and Senate must be pursued at all costs. Any available strategy that is both legal and constitutional that can reduce the total number of Republicans in office should be pursued, whether it is regarded as “dirty” or “hardball.” That sense of urgency must be constant, rather than deployed selectively in election years when the possibility of a GOP takeover becomes horrifyingly real.

So let's assume that people really believe the bolded. Why, then, does he write that only legal means must be used? If you truly believe the Republicans winning will be the end of democracy itself, aren't you justified--required, even--to use all other illegal measures too?

Neither justified nor required. It’s lazy. Forging and maintaining peace is hard work. Democracy is hard work. Being responsible is hard work. Ironically, it’s warmongering that’s easy, especially for leaders.